I would like to know what the greatest problem YEC's have with current geology.

The video does not account for the wide variety in sediments/lithologies found within the geological column. Ignoring the igneous/metamorphics rocks for a moment (which pose a huge problem for YEC), even sedimentary rocks cause a problem. Take chalk for example. Chalk deposits very slowly (cms per year) in warm, shallow waters.

Please share why current observations defy the creation/flood model.

Sedimentation rates indicate that millions of years are required to produce the thicknesses observed within out crops.

This sounds like the uniformitarianism that leads scientists to fallaciously assume that the Grand Canyon was formed about at the same rate as the current rate of erosion.

I wonder what circumstances could have allowed this Chalk Cliff to form?

Even D. Ager agrees that these ckalk cliffs found on every continent and have the same small pieces of black flint and the same tiny fossils,defy any uniformitairian explananation.He noted that these formations are being formed on a very small scale compared to the past.All of the chalk being formed at present also have different sediment types and marine organisms in them,because they are isolated and being formed in completely different areas.That is not what we observe in the Cretaceous chalk cliffs.

"I was taken by a Turkish friend to visit a cliff section in Upper Cretaceous sediments near Sile on the Black Sea coast. ...what I in fact saw was the familiar white chalk of north-west Europe with black flints and old fossil friends such as Micraster and Echinocorys. What I was looking at was identical with the Ã¢â‚¬ËœWhite Cliffs of DoverÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ in England and the rolling plateau of Picardy in France, the quarries of southern Sweden and the cliffs of eastern Denmark. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦We have long known, of course, that the White Chalk facies of late Cretaceous times extended all the way from Antrim in Northern Ireland, via England and northern France, through the Low Countries, northern Germany and southern Scandinavia to Poland, Bulgaria and eventually to Georgia in the south of the Soviet Union. We also knew of the same facies in Egypt and Israel. My record was merely an extension of that vast range to the south side of the Black Sea. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Nevertheless, there is even worse to come, for on the other side of the Atlantic in Texas, we find the Augstin Chalk of the same age and character, and...found in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. And most surprising of all, much farther away still in Western Australia, we have the Gingin Chalk of late Cretaceous age, with the same black flints and the same familiar fossils, resting Ã¢â‚¬â€œ as in north-west Europe Ã¢â‚¬â€œ on glauconitic sands." Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Some general explanation is surely needed for such a wide distribution of such a unique facies pp.1-2 "...in north-west Bulgaria, again the basal conglomerate is largely composed of exactly similar purple quartzite pebbles (resting on Permian breccias also like those of midland England) Even if one postulates continent-wide uplift to produce the conglomerate in such widely separated places, it is very difficult to explain why the source rock is also so remarkably similar from one end of Europe to the other. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦It is well known that the Newark Group of the eastern seaboard of the United States is exactly like the Trias of north-west Europe.. The similarities are almost laughable.. ...we still have to account for a general facies development in late Carboniferous times that extends in essentially the same form all the way from Texas to the Donetz coal basin, north of the Caspian Sea in the U.S.S.R. This amounts to some 170Ã‚Âº of longitude, and closing up the Atlantic by a mere 40Ã‚Âº does not really help all that much in explaining the remarkable phenomenon." The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, pp.6-7.

The problem for YEC's actually turns out to be a problem for the uniformitairians.

I would like to know what the greatest problem YEC's have with current geology.

Hi guys, could I get some help here?

On another board I lurk at, there is a discussion going on about geology. The evos there are posting many examples of geologic formations they say couldn't possibly have formed in less than 4500 years (time of Flood to now) or in the Flood itself. For example, there is this exhumed river channel

An exhumed river channel is a ridge of sandstone that remains when the softer flood plain mudstone is eroded away. The process begins with the deposition of sand within a river channel (typically a meandering river) and mud on the adjacent floodplain. Eventually the channel is abandoned and over time becomes buried by flood deposits from other channels. Because the sand is porous (grain-to-grain contact leaves spaces between), groundwater flows more easily through the sand than through the mud of the floodplain deposits.

Minerals (typically calcium carbonate) can cement the grains together converting the loose sand into sandstone. Meanwhile, pressure from overlying sediments compresses the floodplain mud converting it to mudstone. Millions of years later, erosion can remove the softer, less cemented mudstone and leave the more resistant sandstone as a linear ridge. Thus, the local landscape where these occur is an inverted topography: what was previously low is now high, and vice versa. Exhumed channels are important indicators for ancient stream flow direction.

For the life of me I can't envision how a meandering river channel could form, then get filled in, then harden, then get covered over, then get eroded out to form what is essentially a 3D "fossil" river all while inundated with the raging Flood waters. I also can't see how this could have formed in such a short time after the Flood.

I thought maybe this had formed pre-Flood, but that can't be possible as the channel is found in the Cedar Mountain formation in Utah. The Cedar Mountain Formation is Cretaceous age rock which is on top of all the other layers exposed in the Grand canyon, layers which YECs know were laid by the Flood.

Can someone here please give me a good explanation to give the evos? Thanks!

On another board I lurk at, there is a discussion going on about geology.Ã‚Â The evos there are posting many examples of geologic formations they say couldn't possibly have formed in less than 4500 years (time of Flood to now) or in the Flood itself.Ã‚Â For example, there is this exhumed river channel

From WikiFor the life of me I can't envision how a meandering river channel could form, then get filled in, then harden, then get covered over, then get eroded out to form what is essentially a 3D "fossil" river all while inundated with the raging Flood waters.Ã‚Â I also can't see how this could have formed in such a short time after the Flood.

I thought maybe this had formed pre-Flood, but that can't be possible as the channel is found in the Cedar Mountain formation in Utah.Ã‚Â The Cedar Mountain Formation is Cretaceous age rock which is on top of all the other layers exposed in the Grand canyon, layers which YECs know were laid by the Flood.Ã‚Â

Can someone here please give me a good explanation to give the evos?Ã‚Â Thanks!

Hi assist24,welcome to the forum.

They are setting up a straw man that most of us simply ignore.They never provide a cross-section of the area or it's stratagraphic position above the precambrian.They simply say "A global flood can't do this".Flood geologists are a little bit more sophisticated in their research than that.We know that thousands of local catastrophic events have occured sinse the flood.Glacial lakes bursting their ice-dams (i.e. Santa Cruz River,Channeled Scablands) Earthquakes,volcanoes,climate change,tsunamis,meteor impacts,all of which occured after the flood.If they claim these things could'nt happen during a global flood then I agree,simply go deeper in the strata to the flood layers and thats where their problems begin.

They are setting up a straw man that most of us simply ignore.They never provide a cross-section of the area or it's stratagraphic position above the precambrian.

??...the stratigraphy of the Grand Staircase is well known. The Cedar Mountain formation in Utah is well above the Grand canyon layers.

They simply say "A global flood can't do this".Flood geologists are a little bit more sophisticated in their research than that.We know that thousands of local catastrophic events have occured sinse the flood.Glacial lakes bursting their ice-dams (i.e. Santa Cruz River,Channeled Scablands) Earthquakes,volcanoes,climate change,tsunamis,meteor impacts,all of which occured after the flood.If they claim these things could'nt happen during a global flood then I agree,simply go deeper in the strata to the flood layers and thats where their problems begin.

Um...OK, but can you tell me specifically how the above exhumed river channels did form in less than 4500 years?

I need to argue specifics against specifics. The Wiki explanation is pretty specific in describing the mechanisms. Can't we do as well? I'd like more ammo than just saying "well of course a global Flood can do it".

Thanks again. Sorry for all the questions, but geology fascinates me and I'd like to understand as much as I can.

Ah yes,experimental data no one can argue with,thats what i'm talking about.

First of all,lets falsify the assumption that the lowest strata "The Cambrian Muav" must be the oldest strata "The Law of Superposition".

Now we know that organisms above the Cambrian could have been covered up before the organisms below.

It also corroborates the Coconino sandstone being formed by high flow in water and not by winds in a desert.

The desert sand dune model for the origin of the Coconino Sandstone has also recently been challenged by Glen Visher12, Professor of Geology at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and not a creationist geologist. Visher noted that large storms, or amplified tides, today produce submarine sand dunes called Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsand wavesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. These modern sand waves on the sea floor contain large cross beds composed of sand with very high quartz purity. Visher has thus interpreted the Coconino Sandstone as a submarine sand wave deposit accumulated by water, not wind. This of course is directly contrary to YoungÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s claims, which after all are just the repeated opinions of other evolutionary geologists.

Furthermore, there is other evidence that casts grave doubts on the view that the Coconino Sandstone cross beds formed in desert dunes. The average angle of slope of the Coconino cross beds is about 25Ã‚Â° from the horizontal, less than the average angle of slope of sand beds within most modern desert sand dunes. Those sand beds slope at an angle of more than 25Ã‚Â°, with some beds inclined as much as 30Ã‚Â° to 34Ã‚Â°, the angle of Ã¢â‚¬ËœrestÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ of dry sand. On the other hand, modern oceanic sand waves do not have Ã¢â‚¬ËœavalancheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ faces of sand as common as desert dunes, and therefore, have lower average dips of cross beds.

Visher also points to other positive evidence for accumulation of the Coconino Sandstone in water. Within the Coconino Sandstone is a feature known technically as Ã¢â‚¬Ëœparting lineationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, which is known to be commonly formed on sand surfaces during brief erosional bursts beneath fast-flowing water. It is not known from any desert sand dunes. Thus Visher also uses this feature as evidence of vigorous water currents accumulating the sand, which forms the Coconino Sandstone.

Similarly, Visher has noted that the different grain sizes of sand within any sandstone are a reflection of the process that deposited the sand. Consequently, he performed sand grain size analyses of the Coconino Sandstone and modern sand waves, and found that the Coconino Sandstone does not compare as favourably to dune sands from modern deserts.

He found that not only is the pitting not diagnostic of the last Process to have deposited the sand grains (pitting can, for example, form first by wind impacts, followed by redeposition by water), but pitting and frosting of sand grains can form outside a desert environment.13 For example, geologists have described how pitting on the surface of sand grains can form by chemical processes during the cementation of sand.

Billions of large fossil orthocone nautiloids occur within a single lime packstone bed of the Redwall Limestone through the Grand Canyon region, northern Arizona and southern Nevada. The uppermost 2-m-thick packstone bed of the Whitmore Wash Member of the Redwall Limestone (Osagean Series of the Mississippian System) contains a coplanar horizon averaging 1 nautiloid fossil per m2. The bed with abundant nautiloids extends westward 290 km from Marble Canyon on the Colorado River to Frenchman Mountain near Las Vegas. The platform facies of the bed with abundant nautiloids originally occupied an area of at least 1.5 x 104 km2. Nautiloids resemble the genus Rayonnoceras, but the siphuncle differs from any described in the literature.

Mean length of nautiloids is 0.8 m with log-normal size distribution indicating mass kill of an entire population. Implosion structures and collapse of the body cavity argue that bodies were within the shells at the time of burial. Orientations of nautiloids indicate they were swept up in a westward or southwestward sediment flow. About 15% of nautiloids are vertical within the bed. The packstone bed has inverse grading and abundant fluid-escape pipes indicating strongly fluidized condition and deposition by abrupt freezing from a hyperconcentrated sediment gravity flow. The enormous hyperconcentrated flow hydroplaned westward at a velocity of over 5 m/sec through a shallow, carbonate platform environment, sweeping up, smothering and depositing an entire seafloor population of nautiloids.

Discovery of the extent of the packstone bed, inventory of nautiloid fossils, and interpretation of depositional process were made possible within Grand Canyon National Park by special use permits allowing motorized raft operations with geologists on the Colorado River. Float boulders with nautiloids directed our attention to the source bed within the Redwall cliff. Because of the Antiquities Act, we chose to collect nautiloids for research from outside the national park. Our investigations provide an interesting example of how paleontological discoveries can be made in remote areas of national parks.

??...the stratigraphy of the Grand Staircase is well known. The Cedar Mountain formation in Utah is well above the Grand canyon layers.

Yes and it is also not found between the flood layers,only on top.We expect to see the same thing for lava flows.

Notice how we find lava flows below the flood layers and over the top of the layers,but not between them.

Volcanoes are fairly predictible and erupt at a fairly steady rate.So how can any uniformitairian claim the volcanic activity just stopped for some 800 million years just to start up were it left off.Ofcourse they can never answer that,so they try to bait & switch to different location where no one can see the cross-section.

Hi assist24,welcome to the forum.They are setting up a straw man that most of us simply ignore.They never provide a cross-section of the area or it's stratagraphic position above the precambrian.They simply say "A global flood can't do this".Flood geologists are a little bit more sophisticated in their research than that.

Hi Jason,

I ran into this argument on my favorite hostile atheist forum, which shall remain nameless, and it was interesting how geological features were discussed there. There was no regard for the limitations of actual accuracy regarding extrapolation.

I dubbed the phenomena the "Trump Card" mentality.

I think the Exhumed River Bed at Cedar Mountain Formation is an interesting and unusual feature that should cause anyone to scratch their heads. After all, it is an unusual feature. In discussing it however, and Assist24 alluded to the above mentioned condition, the uniformitarianistic geologists have a tendency to assume that their highly detailed extrapolations can only be countered by more highly detailed extrapolations.

It was kind of like; "Oh you don't know for sure how it was formed? Well, we have an answer so we win!"

It was kind of weird to watch...

Assist24,

You must ask yourself if the day dream stories of geologists has some exclusive claim to truth because they don't mind drawing exhaustive stories of the past based on their own popular assumptions in to greatly detailed events that are unverifiable?

I would personally like to see a much more exhaustive view of that feature, it's cross section and it's topographic location relative to the surrounding features myself before looking at one picture and feeling defeated.

After learning how many attributes are ignored regarding the Grand Canyon to assume the millions of years formation story. I have a feeling that there may be more then meets the eye regarding that feature in Utah.

I would personally like to see a much more exhaustive view of that feature, it's cross section and it's topographic location relative to the surrounding features myself before looking at one picture and feeling defeated.

After learning how many attributes are ignored regarding the Grand Canyon to assume the millions of years formation story. I have a feeling that there may be more then meets the eye regarding that feature in Utah.

I agree.My eyes are'nt to good anymore,so i can't tell if those are boulders or bushes scattered around.Certainly worth further investigation.

??...the stratigraphy of the Grand Staircase is well known. The Cedar Mountain formation in Utah is well above the Grand canyon layers.

Yes and it is also not found between the flood layers,only on top.We expect to see the same thing for lava flows.

Notice how we find lava flows below the flood layers and over the top of the layers,but not between them.

Volcanoes are fairly predictible and erupt at a fairly steady rate.So how can any uniformitairian claim the volcanic activity just stopped for some 800 million years just to start up were it left off.Ofcourse they can never answer that,so they try to bait & switch to different location where no one can see the cross-section.

Do you have a reference for this? I've never seen anyone anywhere claim the Uinkaret and Cardenas volcanism were related at all, certainly not from the same volcano "stopping" for 800 million years. Current geologic thinking is that the Cardenas flows happened over 1 billion years ago and many hundreds of miles away, and were moved into their present location by plate tectonics, then erosion, followed by being overlain with many additional sedimentary layers. That the Cardenas basalt did not form in situ should be obvious by the physical disconnect of the great unconformity.

In contrast, the Uinkaret lava flows are thought to be very recent, less than 800K years years old.

What physical evidence caused you to think the two widely dissimilar volcanic episodes were related? How do you think the great unconformity (the big diagonally sloped slab) got into that tilted position under the other horizontal layers?

How do you think the great unconformity (the big diagonally sloped slab) got into that tilted position under the other horizontal layers?

The obvious solution is that the tilted layers were laid down early in the flood (flat, of course) and were then tilted by the continuing movement of the plate (very rapid movement during the flood). A further effusion of water shaved the surface flat, and then further layers were deposited on top of the exposed cross-section.

I do not think that the idea that the plate movement would have slid the older material over the top of the newer material (probably over hundreds of square miles) is credible. Surely the frictional forces would break up the rock rather than allow them to do any such thing. You would not get a nice smooth junction such as that shown.

Also, if the cross-section of the tilted layers had been caused by erosion over thousands/millions of years, there ought to be many erosional features, such as stream beds and gullies in it. The diagram doesn't hint of any such thing; do such features exist?

Also, if the cross-section of the tilted layers had been caused by erosion over thousands/millions of years, there ought to be many erosional features, such as stream beds and gullies in it. The diagram doesn't hint of any such thing; do such features exist?

The evolutionists mythical erosion godess again.

They always have millions of years of erosion where none exist.Look at the 15 million year unconformity between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale.

Have you ever seen layers deposited so perfectly flat?Remember,at the know rates of erosion the entire continent would be flattened in just 14 million years.

I do not think that the idea that the plate movement would have slid the older material over the top of the newer material (probably over hundreds of square miles) is credible. Surely the frictional forces would break up the rock rather than allow them to do any such thing. You would not get a nice smooth junction such as that shown.

I didn't mean the plate movement slid older material over top the newer material. I meant the original Cardenas lava layer was not laid at its current location relative to the present grand canyon boundaries, and relative to the Uinkaret flows. The original Cardenas lava flowed from a volcanic hot spot in the earth's crust several hundred miles from the present canyon. The same plate tectonic forces that tilted the whole slab also moved it to its present location. As it was moving (a process of several hundred million years) the tilted part was being eroded flat. Then it was covered with additional layers of sediment from the shallow seas that covered N. America. Then further uplifting of the land caused the Colorado river to cut the Grand canyon. Finally, in the last 800,000 years, the new Uinkaret volcanic vents opened up close to the present canyon location and the lava spilled over the existing canyon walls.

The point of the post was to explain that the Uinkaret and Cardenas basalts came from two completely different volcanic sources separated by time and distance, not a single source as jason777 erroneously believes. I probably didn't word the original as clearly as I could have.

Also, if the cross-section of the tilted layers had been caused by erosion over thousands/millions of years, there ought to be many erosional features, such as stream beds and gullies in it. The diagram doesn't hint of any such thing; do such features exist?

Yes, many such erosional-and-infill features and even buried paleocanyons are found throughout the CG area.

The regional unconformity between the Toroweap and Kaibab Formations is locally very subtle with erosional relief as much as 3 m (10 ft) and is mostly covered by talus. However, at some locations in the western Grand Canyon and within this map area, the Kaibab Formation fills large bowl-shaped depressions, possibly erosion channels, up to as much as 3 km (2 mi) wide and about 45 m (150 ft) deep. Thus, the Kaibab Formation is thicker in the erosional basins and channels where the Woods Ranch Member of the Toroweap Formation is eroded away" (George Billingsley, USGS, Geologic map of the upper Parashant Canyon and Vicinity, Mohave County, Northwestern Arizona, MAP M-F -2343).

"In northwestern Arizona, southeastern Nevada, and southwestern Utah, discontinuous conglomerate-filled channels and breccia deposits occur between the Kaibab Formation and Timoweap Member of the Moenkopi Formation. Reeside and Bassler (1922) termed these deposits the Rock Canyon conglomerate for a channel 250ft deep and 700ft wide in Rock Canyon, which is north of Antelope Spring, Arizona. At several localities channels of the Rock Canyon conglomerate have scoured completely through the Harrisburg and into the underlying Fossil Mountain member . . . associated features may represent paleokarst depressions"

Keep in mind that the diagram above is a simplified cartoon drawing showing the barest minimum of detail. When you get past the cartoon version, real life is quite a bit more detailed and complicated. And it's not the devil that's in the details, it's the scientific truth.

Assist24, the thing you have to understand about the wikipedia is that it is controlled by people who believe in evolution and old earth.

I used to be an editor for them and can tell you they are very bias in their information concerning evolution and creation. When I joined I was going to correct some wrong information on the wikipedia to only have every bit of it deleted. And more or less told that I was not allowed to correct information on the creation page.

At which point I asked: Do you (the mod or admin) believe in evolution? He basically would not answer my question which by the way actually did answer my question if you know what I mean.

He knew he had been caught red handed being bias towards a subject the he disagrees with.

Now I tell you this so that you don't trust all that you read on that wiki. not that it's not a good source of info. But if you are going to trust what they say like a dictionary, or encyclopedia. You will be disappointed.

Just look at every religious page on that wiki and you will see for yourself. There is nothing positive on any of those pages. And new editors are welcome to edit it at will as long as it's negitive stuff.

While anything evolution has glowing reports on the subject. And those pages are protected from new editors. The wiki is more or less run like a bait and switch deal where the Christiana are sucked into trying to correct wrong info on their belief to only find that they are denied from doing so. So the the glee of the mod and admins, they get mad and leave. Just as I did.

Assist24, the thing you have to understand about the wikipedia is that it is controlled by people who believe in evolution and old earth.

I used to be an editor for them and can tell you they are very bias in their information concerning evolution and creation. When I joined I was going to correct some wrong information on the wikipedia to only have every bit of it deleted. And more or less told that I was not allowed to correct information on the creation page.

At which point I asked: Do you (the mod or admin) believe in evolution? He basically would not answer my question which by the way actually did answer my question if you know what I mean.

He knew he had been caught red handed being bias towards a subject the he disagrees with.

Now I tell you this so that you don't trust all that you read on that wiki. not that it's not a good source of info. But if you are going to trust what they say like a dictionary, or encyclopedia. You will be disappointed.

Just look at every religious page on that wiki and you will see for yourself. There is nothing positive on any of those pages. And new editors are welcome to edit it at will as long as it's negitive stuff.

While anything evolution has glowing reports on the subject. And those pages are protected from new editors. The wiki is more or less run like a bait and switch deal where the Christiana are sucked into trying to correct wrong info on their belief to only find that they are denied from doing so. So the the glee of the mod and admins, they get mad and leave. Just as I did.

Thanks for the input. I generally don't trust wiki entries but always look up the primary scientific research to ensure what has been entered is accurate and truthful.

BTW, shouldn't these same caveats apply to Creationwiki? It's entries are controlled by people who are just as biased towards a subject they disagree with.

I have seen lots of what I consider baseless propaganda on both the old and young sides - YouTube videos with grandiose claims, misleading strawman arguments (like Snelling's K/Ar "paper") - and as a rule ignore such things unless they are backed up with hard evidence.

Several of the folks who I have been chatting with here keep providing Creationwiki as a source instead of references to the actual research as I request. It's a bit frustrating. Could you maybe remind them that wikis aren't always accurate, and that in the interest of intellectual honesty links to the actual research papers themselves (where available) be provided?

Several of the folks who I have been chatting with here keep providing Creationwiki as a source instead of references to the actual research as I request. It's a bit frustrating.

You're just going to have to stay frustrated because why should we limit ourselves to only those things that you approve? I think Ikester makes a good point and as far as Creationwiki being biased... uh... hello... Creation... Wiki

The problem with Wikipedia is that it purports to be neutral when it's not.

Maybe you would like it if we only used TalkOrigins as the authority on all things science.

Also, if the cross-section of the tilted layers had been caused by erosion over thousands/millions of years, there ought to be many erosional features, such as stream beds and gullies in it. The diagram doesn't hint of any such thing; do such features exist?

The evolutionists mythical erosion godess again.

They always have millions of years of erosion where none exist.Look at the 15 million year unconformity between the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale.

Have you ever seen layers deposited so perfectly flat?Remember,at the know rates of erosion the entire continent would be flattened in just 14 million years.

That's a most remarkable claim. Can you please provide a reference to the scientific data on this phenomenon? To me all that photo shows is superficial weathering and cracking on the exposed vertical surface of the shale, with more erosive debris infilling from the above sandstone. Do you have any evidence that such infilled cracks extend to any substantial depth horizontally back into the unexposed part of the formations?

If the cracks do indeed extend back into the rocks, what is your explanation of how such a formation could be produced by one single flood event that supposedly laid those layers as soft mud one right after the other?

You're just going to have to stay frustrated because why should we limit ourselves to only those things that you approve? I think Ikester makes a good point and as far as Creationwiki being biased... uh... hello... Creation... Wiki

The problem with Wikipedia is that it purports to be neutral when it's not.

Maybe you would like it if we only used TalkOrigins as the authority on all things science.

And Creationwiki is a neutral source of scientific info?

You missed the whole point of the message. I don't recommend using regular Wiki or Creationwiki as a primary source for scientific information because they both are subject to non-neutral entries from their biased editors.

For the same reason I won't use TalkOrigins or AIG or ICR as a primary source. I stated clearly I prefer to reference the actual research papers with the raw data wherever possible.

Can you think of a better way to stay intellectually honest and eliminate the bias from both sides?